Re: Preliminary Review section of Evaluating Web Sites

Hi Judy and all,
Here are my comments to the preliminary review section.
htp://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/bcase/rev.html#prelim

At 22:45 27/07/01, Judy Brewer wrote:

>JB: - is the tone of intro paragraph better now?
>SD: Yes, but I have one remark for the first sentence.  I would split it 
>and reword the second part as follows:
"A preliminary review can be useful to quickly identify the scope of 
problems on a Web site.  It may be used as an imprecise indicator of 
possible accessibility problems on a site."
If you write "many problems on a site", you already assume that the site 
has accessibility problems.
In my rewording I try to make clear that this preliminary review may also 
be a way to quickly check if the WCAG 1.0 have been properly applied.


>JB: - is the representative sampling of pages ok w/ the entry page added?

SD: I agree with the selection of pages. Nevertheless I did not know the 
words "splash screen". is it a current expression or a jargon term, that 
people whose mother tongue is not english may not understand?

>JB: - I moved the note about reviewers with disabilities sometimes needing to
>pair up (to second step of preliminary review); does that work?

SD: I am not sure that the note concerning reviewers with disabilities is 
completely right:
you mean that reviewers with disabilities may not be able to follow one of 
the following steps on their own. Why should they ask someone with another 
disability to help them with these steps? They also may ask someone who 
does not have any disability but who may be able to follow this step.
Asking people with other disabilities may be important for the site full 
review but not mandatory for the preliminary review, as it is not always 
easy to find people with disabilities to help reviewing. When people work 
on intranet websites and they do not have people with disabilities in their 
company/organisation, they cannot ask someone from outside, because they do 
not have access to the company's/organisation's web site.


>JB: - in the sub-list of five "browser tricks," are the instructions about 
>what
>to do clear and useful?

SD: As far as the last step is concerned, I would add:
5.      put away the mouse and tab through the links on a page, making sure 
that you can access and activate all links via tab and enter keys, and that 
they clearly indicate what they lead to

I agree with Lila on the necessity to make a link somewhere that would 
explain how to follow these steps.
Adda link like: for more information on changing browser settings visit ...
I think that many web sites developers do not know about the possibility of 
changing browser settings.


>JB: - I added a note about "experienced users of screen readers" in step #3,
>with a little bit of caution in different directions, to try to work in
>what Carlos was saying since this seems to be a way to fit it in even in
>the preliminary review

SD: I assume that a preliminary review should be a fast review of the site, 
which would not last very long.
i'm afraid people are discouraged to learn the use of a voice browser. why 
shouldn't  we link to a tool like lynxviewer?
Moreover, I am not sure that people will easily find disabled people to do 
the review, except if disabled people work with them. Asking disabled 
people seems to me more important during the full review.


>JB: - for a "preliminary review," I'm assuming it is not necessary to add a
>summary/reporting step, since this is really focused on a
>"do-it-yourself-without-getting-up-from-your-desk approach, and the
>intended audience is probably the person doing the review. Unless it makes
>sense to briefly advise the reviewer how to sum up the results of the
>preliminary review, e.g. something like "5. Summarize review results, being
>careful to emphasize that this is a preliminary review only and not a
>determination of conformance level" -- reactions?

SD: I think that if the reviewer follows the steps listed in the 
preliminary review, he will find himself if there are accessibility 
problems on his pages. The results will be the report. However, will he be 
able to find out what he should do to solve the problems or to have a 
further review?


>JB: - other comments on preliminary review section of this document?
We should add something on the qualities of the reviewer: what he has to 
know to be able to do the review: HTML, reviewing tools, does he need to be 
trained? If yes, how?

Regards
Sylvie

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 09:16:06 UTC